Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Many items to deal with today - however, they all have a common theme on this Hallow's Eve: the banality of evilincompetence.

Pre-emptive strikes - at the local level: The Wild, Wild West is back, in a community near you! Indeed, 19 out of 50 U.S. states, mostly in the south and the central regions of the country, now have "Stand your ground" (or "Shoot first") laws which, in sharp contrast with traditional self-defense laws, do not require that a person who opens fire on an intruder/burglar be able to prove that he/she was physically threatened, that force was used only as a last resort, or that the victim had first tried to hide. And that is because such "Shoot first" laws generally stipulate that an act of intrusion (into a home or car) constitutes automatically a real threat of injury or death to its occupants - hence, all one needs is to "feel threatened" (whether justifiably or not) in order to be legally protected from prosecution when "firing first and asking questions later". Hmmm ... this sounds somewhat similar to Bush's Pre-Emptive Strike Doctrine, no? Not surprisingly, this sickening can of worms has already yielded its shares of tragedies, such as a father shooting his teenage daughter as she was sneaking back home after going out without permission, or the killing of a disguised Japanese exchange student on Halloween who made the fatal mistake of walking up to the wrong house - which happened to be the residence of an hysteric airhead and her gun-happy husband (h/t to CC for these two examples). Note to self: whenever I have to go to the U.S.A., remember to never take a stroll in any neighborhood in case I am mistaken for a stalker, would-be burglar or just a plainly "suspicious-looking stranger". Apparently, the natives are easily scared and prone to use their so-precious guns. Irrationality and fear rule the day indeed: welcome (again) to the Semi-Dark Ages. Which brings me to ...

Global War on Terror(TM) - great for business: In addition to the ludicrous acts of fraud perpetrated by private contractors in Iraq (and in Afghanistan as well), the war on terror is proving to be one humongous profitable cash cow for the whole of the industrial-military complex. It has already become obvious that this so-called war has been diverting incalculable resources away from serious efforts to counter terrorism, leaving us with silly, irritating, abusive and utterly inefficient measures such as no-fly lists, airport security checks, and other such nonsense, in order to actually reward corporations that profit from high-tech weaponry that has little usefulness in genuine counter terrorism. Think about it: "With rare exceptions, the war against terrorists cannot be fought with army tank battalions, air force wings, or naval fleets—the large conventional forces that drive the defense budget. The main challenge is not killing the terrorists but finding them, and the capabilities most applicable to this task are intelligence and special operations forces. ... It does not require half a trillion dollars worth of conventional and nuclear forces. That half a trillion only covers the Pentagon budget for expenses beyond the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or the Department of Homeland Security. Those last three items total more than $240 billion in Bush’s 2008 budget requests. Add to that the $50 billion spent on intelligence agencies and an equal amount of State Department-directed efforts and you can understand how we manage to spend more fighting a gang of mujahedeen terrorists, once our "freedom fighters" in that earlier Afghan war against the Soviets, than we did at the height of the Cold War (...)". To this effect, the Institute for Policy Studies calculated last year that the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have pocketed a combined $984 million dollars since 9/11 - enough to cover the entire wage bill for more than a million Iraqis for a year. And while you chew on this bit of trivia, consider the following: "The 'war on terror' is fraudulent. The cruel war and the deceptive vocabulary that protects it are a cover for expanding US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and for constructing a functioning police state at home. A country in which people cannot make airline reservations without the government's permission is not a free country". Let it be known: the Global War on Terror(TM)is a fraud (doh!). And once again: as we let the neocons' wet dreams becoming reality (and such wet dreams go as far back as 1992), this is whywe are the real problem with terrorism. Hence the question: how long before We The People stops performing as post-9/11 fear-driven dancing puppets to the controlling tune of Operation Enduring Propaganda? In the unlikely event that you would remain unconvinced of all of this, then I suggest that you re-read the previous four items above.

Monday, October 29, 2007

punditman says: This article is a highly recommended read. It is a fascinating behind the scenes glimpse that sets the record straight on recent US-Iranian relations. It is also a tale of how the neo-cons within the Bush administration have done everything in their power to derail any sort of accomodation between the two sides, and, like the Valerie Plame affair, it demonstrates the lengths that this administration will go to threaten and punish whistle blowers.

By John H. RichardsonEsquire

Thursday 18 October 2007

Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration say the US has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It'll be Iraq all over again.

In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm - not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.

"The hard-liners are upping the pressure on the State Department," says Leverett. "They're basically saying, 'You've been trying to engage Iran for more than a year now and what do you have to show for it? They keep building more centrifuges, they're sending this IED stuff over into Iraq that's killing American soldiers, the human-rights internal political situation has gotten more repressive - what the hell do you have to show for this engagement strategy?' "

But the engagement strategy was never serious and was designed to fail, they say. Over the last year, Rice has begun saying she would talk to "anybody, anywhere, anytime," but not to the Iranians unless they stopped enriching uranium first. That's not a serious approach to diplomacy, Mann says. Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies. That's how wars are averted. You work up to the big things. And when U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had his much-publicized meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad this spring, he didn't even have permission from the White House to schedule a second meeting.

The most ominous new development is the Bush administration's push to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

"The U.S. has designated any number of states over the years as state sponsors of terrorism," says Leverett. "But here for the first time the U.S. is saying that part of a government is itself a terrorist organization."

This is what Leverett and Mann fear will happen: The diplomatic effort in the United Nations will fail when it becomes clear that Russia's and China's geopolitical ambitions will not accommodate the inconvenience of energy sanctions against Iran. Without any meaningful incentive from the U.S. to be friendly, Iran will keep meddling in Iraq and installing nuclear centrifuges. This will trigger a response from the hard-liners in the White House, who feel that it is their moral duty to deal with Iran before the Democrats take over American foreign policy. "If you get all those elements coming together, say in the first half of '08," says Leverett, "what is this president going to do? I think there is a serious risk he would decide to order an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations and probably a wider target zone."

This would result in a dramatic increase in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, attacks by proxy forces like Hezbollah, and an unknown reaction from the wobbly states of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where millions admire Iran's resistance to the Great Satan. "As disastrous as Iraq has been," says Mann, "an attack on Iran could engulf America in a war with the entire Muslim world."

Friday, October 26, 2007

Jesus just left Chicago and he's bound for New Orleans.Well now, Jesus just left Chicago and he's bound for New Orleans.Yeah, yeah.Workin' from one end to the other and all points in between.

Took a jump through Mississippi, well, muddy water turned to wine.Took a jump through Mississippi, muddy water turned to wine.Yeah, yeah.Then out to California through the forests and the pines.Ah, take me with you, Jesus.

You might not see him in person but he'll se you just the same.You might not see him in person but he'll se you just the same.Yeah, yeah.You don't have to worry 'cause takin' care of business is his name.

The middle course: Jimi Hendrix - Red House

(Lyrics below the video)

There's a red house, over yonderThat's where my baby staysYeahThere's a red house over yonder, babyThat's where my baby stays

I ain't been home to see my babyIn about a ninety-nine and one half daysIt's about time to see herWait minute something's wrongThis key won't unlock this doorWait a minute something's wrong, babyThe key won't unlock the doorYeahI got a bad bad feelingThat my baby don't live here no moreShe ain't comin' about is sheThat's alright i still got my guitar

Look out babyYeah, look outYeah that's alrightYeah haha

I might as well a go on back downGo back across yonder over the hillMight as well go back over yonderWay back over yonder across the hillThat's where i came from

Cause if my baby don't love me no moreI know here sister will!Yeah.

And the closing act: Stevie Ray Vaughan - Couldn't Stand The Weather

(Lyrics below the video)

Runnin through this business of lifeRarely time if Im needed toAint so funny when things aint feelin rightThen daddys hand helps to see me throughSweet as sugar, love wont wash awayRain or shine, its always here to stayAll these years you and Ive spent togetherAll this, we just couldnt stand the weather

Like a train that stops at every stationWe all deal with trials and tribulationsFear hangs the fellow that ties up his yearsEntangled in yellow and cries all his tearsChanges come before we can growLearn to see them before were too oldDont just take me for tryin to be heavyUnderstand, its time to get ready for the storm.

And that's all she wrote, folks - nuthin' but da blues to sooth them FUBAR aches and pains, eh?

Now, remember when I wrote about why the surge in Iraq must appear to be working, so as to push the "idea" that "the way to success for the Iraqi surge goes through Iran"? Well, dixit the Grand Poobah Neocon Extraordinaire himself, Bill Kristol: "(Iran) is now the only real threat, I think, incidentally, to relative success in Iraq". See? I. Told. You. So.

(And just in case: I apologize profusely in advance should it turn out that I unintentionally provided this ludicrous talking point to the likes of Kristol and Co. - in my defense, I was being sarcastic ... oh well)

Which brings me to the next item ...

Item 3:Just keep on making that (bogus) case for an Iran War!

Yes indeed - gotta make sure you end up with a whole slew of reasons to bomb Iran which can be used one after the other, as was done with regards to Iraq, right? (Remember these classics: "WMDs!", "Mushroom cloud!", "Terrorists!", "Saddam was involved in 9/11!", "Saddam-al Qaeda link!", "Saddam is a destabilizing force in the Middle East!, "There is a need for regime change!", "Bring democracy to Iraq!", etc.). So, what do we have so far in the case of Iran?

Iran is sponsoring terrorism? Check (Hey - even former British Prime Minister and still-Bush's-poodle Tony Blair said so as well - so it must be true, eh? But I digress).

(You may want to read or re-read previous installments of Iran Watch in order to better appreciate the continuum of such yet-to-be-firmly-established accusations here, here, here, here, here and here, in addition to this week's)

So, despite talks of remaining resistance from the U.S. military (including, surprisingly, Adm. Mullen himself) on the idea of launching an Iran war, many a folk out there (like myself) remain worried that it will happen soon nevertheless.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Over the past several weeks, the United States has gone out of its way to offend, irk and otherwise provoke a select group of leaders and nations. Through a series of deliberate and calculated actions intended to purposefully estrange those most likely to succeed at diplomacy with Iran, its failure has been ordained and the stage for military action set. For those who think the upcoming war will be another Bush-Cheney folly (as they believe Iraq to be), the collusion of the Democrats in the process again belies that assumption.

The groundwork was laid in September, when the Senate overwhelmingly approved a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "foreign terrorist organization"--the prerequisite term needed to justify the use of force and the first ever such characterization of a governmental entity.

Being knee-deep into scientific writing (grant applications, papers, etc.), posting will be light on my part for the coming two to four weeks. Regular features such as the Iran Watch or the Weekly Revue will not be pre-empted; however, any other posting activity of mine will be more of the "Various Items" or "Round'em Up" type of format (as opposed to my more "long-winded" usual fare) until current demands on my scientific writing activity return to "normal" levels. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Monday, October 22, 2007

One news story from Afghanistan last week told of two tragedies. In Paktika Province a young man, whose chest was wrapped with an explosive vest, was en route to the place where he would detonate himself. But then, he saw people at prayer in a mosque, and he changed his mind. He went to the police. He began removing his explosive vest, but it went off. He alone was killed.

In Uruzgan Province, a young man, recently home from Pakistan where he had attended a religious school, announced a similar intention to his family. He was going to kill the enemy by killing himself. The article said that he handed over $3,600, presumably a reward for what he was about to do. In front of his mother, brother, and two sisters, he displayed his explosive vest. The young man’s mother was horrified, and she immediately tried to remove the vest from his body. The bomb detonated. The young man, his mother, and his three siblings were killed instantly.

Reports from Afghanistan and Iraq have been numbingly discouraging, in part because, in the United States, they come as a steady stream of abstraction. We see the faces of American casualties on the evening news, and the fate of wounded GIs draws sympathy, but otherwise the human cost of the war is kept vague.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

In said insightful article, georgia10 proceeds to criticize Thomas Friedman's "Generation Q" article, which essentially contends that the current generation of college students, which he dubs Generation Q (for "Quiet American"), "may be too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country’s own good".

I agree with georgia10 that Friedman used "dull threads of myth and misrepresentation" and likewise agree overall with georgia10's deconstruction of this recent offering by Friedman.

Unfortunately, georgia10 not only missed the crucial points made by Friedman, but ended up validating/demonstrating his points for him.

Mind you - Thomas Friedman is quite known for being wrong on many-a-thing. Nevertheless, the main concerns of Friedman, and which are too quickly brushed aside by georgia10, are the following (emphasis mine):

When I think of the huge budget deficit, Social Security deficit and ecological deficit that our generation is leaving this generation, if they are not spitting mad, well, then they’re just not paying attention. And we’ll just keep piling it on them.

There is a good chance that members of Generation Q will spend their entire adult lives digging out from the deficits that we — the “Greediest Generation,” epitomized by George W. Bush — are leaving them.

(...) Generation Q would be doing itself a favor, and America a favor, if it demanded from every candidate who comes on campus answers to three questions: What is your plan for mitigating climate change? What is your plan for reforming Social Security? What is your plan for dealing with the deficit — so we all won’t be working for China in 20 years?

(...) America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.

While I am certainly no fan at all of Thomas Friedman, I agree strongly with these points. Indeed, this is what I wrote a while ago (emphasis added):

Living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility. And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)?

(...) we must continue to expose, document and discuss incompetence - but we must also be willing to get off from our couches and convince those outside of the blogosphere to join in, or at least to make the effort to keep themselves critically informed. At the same time, we must keep organizing and pressuring to make the changes required to save the gravely ill patient that is society (...).

It is a long and winding road indeed - but competence as citizens requires (nay: demands) this from all of us.

And specifically with regards to blogs, bloggers and blog readers/commenters? This was my conclusion (emphasis added):

(There are those) who are not only blogging, dissecting and doing the "gotcha!" thing, but at the same time are actively involving themselves directly to enact change in the sad state of affairs that we are currently finding ourselves in. Unfortunately, achieving sustainable change and progress in politics, democracy, media and society at large constitutes a long, patient and determined endeavor. To this effect, my impression from reading regularly the "Big Blogs" is that the overwhelming majority of bloggers and blog readers of the progressive blogosphere content themselves at dissecting, ranting and/or reading/commenting - especially where blogs which are either "entertaining", or those which deal with the outrage du jour, are concerned.

(...) In the meantime, each day brings its new outrage - while the song remains the same.

In short: the blogosphere is predominantly the online transposition of the water cooler conversations. Nothing more, nothing less - at least for the time being.

(...) First and foremost, all of us must accept the reality that achieving change and progress requires patience, determination and perseverance.

Or, to put it another way: we must actively engage ourselves directly if we are to enact sustainable change in our democratic societies.

Which now brings me to georgia10's conclusions with regards to the current generation of college students, now dubbed the "Generation in waiting" (emphasis mine):

We are a generation filled with energy and ideas and promise. We are a generation that yearns for real government and real leadership. We are a generation in waiting, busily occupying ourselves with causes and civic service but shuffling our feet as we wait to find ourselves and our voice in this national discourse.

We are a generation brimming with potential that need not be realized necessarily by street protests and by acts of resistance (the face of modern activism is about so much more than that). We chatter productively amongst ourselves, convinced that the government is too busy screwing up or playing politics to give a damn what we say, waiting for the cloud of idiocy to pass so that some sort of rationality and reason can shine on our nation once more.

We are a generation in waiting. Waiting to be treated as more than just a focus group, waiting to be treated to more than just a Facebook add, waiting for a government and a country that is willing to speak with us rather than to us. And when that time comes, when we are asked to and can speak with a national voice, well, then, "Generation Q" won't be so quiet after all.

Being proactive is what this should be about. Don't wait to have the necessary conditions to engage - create the changes you need to engage yourself.

Waiting for the right conditions or waiting to be "asked" before speaking is like backseat driving: your hands are not on the wheel and you have no say to where the bus is going - not even a say where or when it stops.

Hence the question in the title of the present response, considering georgia10's conclusions: is this the Generation In Waiting, or the Generation Sulking?

"Talking the talk" has never resulted in anything productive - except when it is backed by "walking the walk".

And waiting without doing anything to enact changes in government and politics will always translate in "plus ça change, plus c'est pareil" (the more things change, the more they stay the same). Indeed, we must never forget this simple truism (emphasis added):

We The People - this is what it has, and always has been, about. In a democracy, it is the electorate who holds all the keys and guard all the doors - provided that the citizens actually live up to their responsibility.

(...) we are the ones who have broken the "contract between citizens and their government" because, in essence, we thought somehow that our vigilance and implication were optional.

We have abrogated our responsibilities by virtue of A) that we do not get involved in party politics and nominations; B) that too many of us do not bother to vote; and C) that voter apathy not only perpetuates, but furthermore exacerbates, the problem. Yet, now, we are carping about our rights - all the while conveniently ignoring our responsibilities in the matter.

It is a noble thing to be raging against the drying of the light. But will it save it from dying nonetheless?

Saturday, October 20, 2007

So many exercises in incompetence and outright stupidity, and so little time to cover all of them individually.

That is why I round them up herein:

Item 1:Shorter James Watson: "whites are more intelligent than blacks". It doesn't matter that he is a renowned scientist (having discovered the structure of DNA, along with Francis Crick) - my question to Dr. Watson is: aren't you in fact demonstrating that "whites" can be as incompetent, as unintelligent, as dumb and as stupid as any other person of any race by making such a declaration utterly devoid of scientific facts?

And as follow up questions: where did you get your Ph.D., Dr. Watson - from a Cracker Jack box? Good thing Dr. Crick was there to help in the discovery of the structure of DNA, eh?

Item 2:Shorter Margaret Wente: "you are right, Mr. Gore, but could you STFU so that I can remain cozily comfortable and undisturbed with my head buried deep in the sand? Thank you". To which I reply with the following question: next time you find yourself uninspired to write an intelligent and cogent column, Margaret, could you simply write nothing and spare us anymore of your vapid, insipid and utterly inconsequential prattle to excuse your pettiness and incompetence as a columnist and as a human being?

Item 3:Shorter Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, John H. Marburger III: "yes, humans are producing too much carbon dioxide but temperature changes won't affect people's lives, nor will they cause weather-related disaster events". Translation: "global warming, shlobal warming!" Hence my question to John H. Marburger III: when exactly did your Ph.D. in applied physics miraculously transmuted into one in climatology, thus not only making you an expert on all things climate change, but furthermore a "better" expert than the actual consensus of an overwhelming majority of scientists on this very real crisis?

And as obvious follow up questions: where did you get your Ph.D., Dr. Marburger - from a Cracker Jack box? Good thing you are not only playing the (incompetent) political crony to your environmentally-misinformed and -ignorant boss, President George W. Bush, eh? (winkwink)

Item 4: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to Maher Arar: "tough luck for what we did to ya - but hey - we need extraordinary renditions and torture to keep us safe. Too bad you happened to be really innocent, even if you are a Muslim". Here's my question to ya, Rep. Rohrabacher: if such barbarity saves lives as you oh-so-conveniently claim, why is it we never heard of a single instance of a terrorist plot twarted (along with the arrest of terrorists involved), let alone "advertised" and publicly "paraded" to this effect?

And as follow-up questions: is your current suspicious defense of renditions and torture more informed, less informed, or equally non-informed, than your previous suspicious defense of (convicted) lobbyist Jack Abramoff? Or are you simply a G.O.P. mindless robot who defends all things G.O.P.-related regardless of truth, facts and reality?

Item 5: Attorney General nominee Mike Mukasey:"don't grant anymore rights to unlawful enemy combatants detained in Gitmo than they already have - that's my excuse to justify my position against a restoration of habeas corpus and I'm sticking to it". To which I reply with this question: what rights do they have to begin with, jackass?

And this obvious follow-up: and what about the absence of habeas corpus for Americans, you authoritarian bozo?

Item 6:Shorter Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte: "al-Qaeda resurging in Afghanistan and other areas? It's all good, man - cuz then they're not in Iraq anymore!" To which I reply with the following question: Mr. Negroponte - how desperate and stupidly inane can you get in trying to sell the (false) idea that there is "success" and "progress" in Iraq?

With the obvious follow-ups: Does Prime Minister Stephen Harper, staunch promoter and defender of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, have anything to say about this? Does he also applaud the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, since this would obviously justify his pledge to extend the deployment of Canadian troops there beyond 2009?

"Everything done before January 2006 was bad, Canada was not a leader of anything - especially not on the environment question or on the world stage - and Canada was certainly not united. Now, all has been put aright since January 2006 and all is well and good - consequently, we will stay the course.

(including more proscratinating on the global warming question, and with more crime and security measures to be implemented because, well, we must stay afraid of them baaaaaad criminals and terrorists - the latter which again justify our staying longer in Afghanistan, at least until 2011)

And God Bless the United States of America Canada. Thank you; good night."

My question, to whit: do we need anymore proof to support the point that the Conservative Party of Canada is nothing more than a Canadian franchise of the G.O.P.?

And adding these obvious follow-up questions: could our Mini Leader be more laughable in his earnestness in trying to please his idol, President G.W. Bush? And where does that leave us Canadians?

Item 8: Parti Québecois leader Pauline Marois pushes for a "Québec Identity" legislation which, among other things, calls for denying "Québec citizenship" to immigrants who fail to learn French, consequently barring them from holding public office at any level, raising funds for political parties, or petitioning the National Assembly for redress of a grievance. Question: how can you deny fundamental, constitutional rights to Canadian citizens because they fail your petty little litmus-test for "Québec citizenship", Mme Marois?

Follow-up: Mme Marois - are you so ignorant of constitutional rights in our country (Canada) and province (Québec) to come up with such an insipid and utterly stupid piece of legislation, or are you in truth a lowly bigot in disguise despite all your pretenses to the contrary?

And these other follow-ups: could any current provincial political figure make me more ashamed of being a Québecois than I am now? What's next - "deport" those immigrants who failed to learn French to other provinces? Will someone please stop this insanity? Anyone? Please?

Teh stupid - it burns, indeed. Granted, there is so much more out there that could have been dealt with herein, but my brain has now come too close to the irreversible, exploding point.

Hence, this concludes this installment of Valid Questions Vs Excercises In Stupidity.

Once again, the recent words of Colin Powell ring as true as ever (despite his disgrace for having played in the charade to sell false/cooked intelligence to sell the Iraq war):

What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change (our) way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?

And what is this annoying/damning/telling song, you ask? Here it is: Burden in my hand - Soundgarden:

(Lyrics below the video)

Follow me into the desertAs thirsty as you areCrack a smile and cut your mouthAnd drown in alcoholCause down below the truth is lyingBeneath the riverbedSo quench yourself and drink the waterThat flows below her head

Oh no there she goesOut in the sunshine the sun is mine

I shot my love today would you cry for meI lost my head again would you lie for me

Close your eyes and bow your headI need a little sympathyCause fear is strong and love's for everyoneWho isn't meSo kill your health and kill yourselfAnd kill everything you loveAnd if you live you can fall to piecesAnd suffer with my ghost

I shot my love today would you cry for meI lost my head again would you lie for meI left her in the sand just a burden in my handI lost my head again would you cry for me

Just a burden in my handJust another anchor on my heartJust a tumor in my headAnd I'm in the dark

So follow me into the desertAs desperate as you areThe moon is glued to a picture of heavenAnd all the little pigs have gone

Oh no there she goesOut in the sunshine the sun is mineSun is mine

I shot my love today would you cry for meI lost my head again would you lie for meI left her in the sand just a burden in my handI lost my head again would you cry for me

As we go through the numbing process of listening to what passes for news these days — Britney Spears losing custody of her kids, O.J. arrested for kidnapping and Pamela Andersen getting married — Canadians seem blissfully unaware of the increasing signs of a global catastrophe. There are extremely worrying indications that the U.S. is planning — and soon — to attack Iran.

According to the Guardian, the hawkish French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, recently stated “we must expect the worst, and the worst is war.” John Bolton, Bush's former UN ambassador, used a Tory conference in Britain to call for a strike against Iran. Rumours persist a strike could involve tactical, “bunker busting” nuclear weapons.Keep Reading...

Something old, something new: guess who's this week's culprit for 9/11? That's right - after al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, now it's Iran's turn to be responsible for 9/11! Next month, I expect it will be revealed that Syria was behind it all along. And then in December, it will be Santa Claus who will be shown the reallyreallyrealactualtruecrossmyheartaandhopetodie culprit for 9/11. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, the same old bogus accusations regarding Iran are being floated about (including that of foistering terrorism), in addition to raising the fearmongering meter even higher with regards to its nuclear energy program. A true PR operation is on the way to hammer the message home (or, as I've always called it: Operation Enduring Propaganda - but it's just me).

But why wait? The Bush administration warned U.S banks that Iranian "entities" may try to skirt financial sanctions by using various "deceptive practices" and therefore to be on the look out for this, while U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would set off a regional arms race and raise the risk of a major Mideast war.

(Nevermind that it has never been proven so far that Iran has a nuclear weapons research program. And never you mind that Iran certainly does not have a nuclear weapon at present, and that a recent N.I.E. indicates that if it were trying to get one, it would take until at least 2016 - and then only if the international environment were conductive to the high-tech imports necessary to achieve a successful construction and testing of such advanced weaponry. Indeed - nevermind such facts and just be afraid ... as in the case of the pre-Iraq war build-up, back in 2002.)

On a related note: Russia's President Vladimir Putin has become wary enough of a possible U.S. attack on Iran so as to actually warn that Russia is considering withdrawal from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) unless it is expanded to include other states (you know, like Iran, maybe?). This in turn prompted President Bush's reassurances that the U.S. will continue to work with Russia on ways to defuse Iran's nuclear program (I kid you not!), while U.S. Secretary of State of Condoleezza Rice felt compelled to express concerns about Russia's increasing military "assertiveness" (Sheesh - did she look at what the U.S. has been doing in the last six years-or-so - at the very least?!?).

Once again, Iraq vets lay it on the line, describing reality in lieu of the typical lies, spins and misinformations that are thrown day in and day out by the "knowledgeable" politicos, the "serious" pundits, the "expert" war scholars and the "truthful" generals (or, as I like to call this: Operation Enduring Propaganda).

These twelve Iraq vets did not dance around the issue as they begin their Op-Ed thusly:

Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.

This bluntly put summary of the situation in Iraq is in sharp contrast to what we heard back in September, when Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker testified that the surge is working and that there has been significant progress in Iraq.

However, such a description by these twelve Iraq vets echoes almost exactly what other Iraq vets have been saying, writing or blogging, so far. Even some MSM correspondents are now publicly admiting the harsh truth of it.

It is therefore not surprising to hear that the testimony of Gen. Petraeus may have been "misleading" (doh!).

But the present twelve Iraq vets did not stop there (emphasis mine):

As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.

What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.

Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.

The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.

U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much "battle space," are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks -- on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.

Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we're gone.

This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.

Translation: we had no business there to begin with, we made things worse by going in there and there's no way things will get better.

So much for "progress" in Iraq, eh?

For the closer, the twelve Iraq vets articulate plainly and bluntly what has been discussed and pointed out by rational voices prior to the launching of the Iraq war as well as ever since its beginning, voices which have been consistently ignored or largely ridiculed (emphasis mine):

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.

No better way to say this - nor can one underestimate the power of these words considering who wrote them.

Blog posts at APOV constitute the opinions of the authors and theirs only.

Reader comments are the sole responsibility of the commenters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of APOV's authors. Should any information in the comments be perceived as incorrect or defamatory, please notify APOV's owner (Mentarch) who will consequently attempt to rectify any such errors.